# Joint Appendix — Goldman v. Weinberger > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0168%3A05 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Joint Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1986 - **Citation:** 475 U.S. 503 ## Text q rq SEP_g 1965 In The OSEPH F. SPANIOL, JR Supreme Court of the United States" October Term, 1985 ' No. 84-1097 ————— —— -f) --— S. SIMCHA GOLDMAN, Petitioner, v. CASPER W. WEINBERGER, Secretary of Detense, et al., Respondent. wy Vv On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ) JOINT APPENDIX ty) Vv NATHAN LEWIN CHARLES FRIED 2555 M Street, N.W. Acting Solicitor General Suite °° Washine:on, D. C. 20037 iene (202) 293-6400 Counsel of Record for Petitioner OF COUNSEL: DAVID J. BUTLER Brownstein Zeidman & Schomer 1467 New York Ave., N.W. Suite 900 Washington, D. C. 20005 (202) 879-5700 DENNIS RAPPS National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs 450 Seventh Avenue New York, N. Y. 10001 (212) 563-0100 PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED JANUARY 7, 1985 CERTIORARI GRANTED JUNE 17, 1985 COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO., (800) 835-7427 Ext. 333 ’ REST AVAILABLE COPY TABLE OF PARTS OF THE RECORD CONTAINED IN THE JOINT APPENDIX* Relevant Docket Entries in the Courts Below 1 Complaint of S. Simcha Goldman filed in United States District Court for the District of Columbia i i, 8 | aaa tian haa Answer of Secretary of Defense et al. to Plaintiff’s Complaint (United States District Court for the District of Columbia) (September 9, 1981) —.. 10 Photographs of the Plaintiff —— sauna Exhibit A) - ER ‘ Simin (Oe Defendants’ Rist to Plaintiff's calc (United States District Court for the District of Columbia) (August 17, 1981) - inet idien, ie Transcript of Trial Before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia sussnsenadle 10, 1981) EA Sle A hall 29 Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff's ie for Ad- missions (United States District Court for the Dis- OR NG A *The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (April 26, 1982) appear in the Appendix to the Petition for a Writ of Cer- tiorari at 28a-34a. The Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (April 26, 1982) appears in the gee to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at 35a-36a. Decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (May 8, 1984) appears in the Ap- pendix to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at 1a-20a. The Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denying the . 7" for rehearing en banc and the dissenting statements filed by Circuit Judge Starr and Circuit Judge Ginsburg appear in the Appendix to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at 21a-27a. 3 TABLE OF PARTS OF THE RECORD CONTAINED IN THE JOINT APPENDIX—Continued Page Deposition of S. Simcha Goldman (United States Dis- trict Court for the District of Columbia) (August 6, 1981) 151 Order from Col. Joseph E. Gregory to Capt. S. Sim- cha Goldman (June 23, 1981) (Plaintiff’s Deposi- tion Exhibit 1) 207 Letter of Reprimand from Col. Seite E. Gregory to Capt. S. Simcha Goldman (June 24, 1981) (Plain- tiff’s Deposition Exhibit 2) 0. ‘. _. 208 Reply to Letter of Reprimand by Capt. S. Simcha Goldman (June 24, 1981) (Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit 3) - 209 Application of Capt. S. Simcha Goldman for Exten- sion of Date of Separation from the Air Force (May 11, 1981) (Plaintiff’s Depositien Exhibit 4) —. 210 Performance Rating of Capt. S. Simcha Goldman (January 19, 1979) weeps Deposition Ex- ee 214 Performance Rating of Capt. S. Simcha Goldman (Oc- tober 20, 1980) (Plaintiff’s Deposition Exhibit 9)... 220 Excerpt from I. Klein, A Guide to Jewish i ae Practice (1979) (Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibit 6) —..... 226 Request by Capt. Howard Rosman for Waiver from Air Force Regulation 35-10 (July 8, 1974) (Plain- tiff’s Trial Exhibit 7) . 229 Letter from Col. Frank E. Edmunds, Jr. Recommend- ing Approval of Capt. Rosman’s Request (July 9, 1974) (Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibit 8) 229 Letter from Col. Richard A. Burpee Denying Capt. Rosman’s Request (July 22, 1974) (Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibit 9) . 230 ill TABLE OF PARTS OF THE RECORD CONTAINED IN THE JOINT APPENDIX—Continued Page Letter from Nathan Lewin to David R. Johnson, Office of the General Counsel, United States Air Force (July 25, 1974) (Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibit NEE EEE Ee 231 Affidavit of Capt. Donald Dale Reeves (August 31, 1981) (United States District Court for the District EE EE LET 237 Research Data on Religious Requirements and Prac- tices, With Attached Excerpt from G. Appel, The Concise Code of Jewish Law (Vol. 1) ( nti wad fendant’s Trial Exhibit 1) 0000 240 RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES IN THE COURTS BELOW I. United States District Court for the District of Columbia July 2, 1981 July 2, 1981 July 2, 1981 July 2, 1981 July 10, 1981 July 13, 1981 July 13, 1981 July 21, 1981 August 6, 1981 Complaint of S. Simcha Goldman Application by Plaintiff for Tempo- rary Restraining Order Temporary Restraining Order Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Argued and Granted Motion for Preliminary Injunction Argued and Granted Memorandum Opinion of the United States District Court Order of the United States District Court Granting Motion for Prelimin- ary Injunction Motion by Plaintiff to Use Plaintiff’s Deposition Testimony at Trial Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Use Plaintiff’s Deposition Testimony at Trial September 9, 1981 Answer by Secretary of Defense et al. to Plaintiff’s Complaint September 10, 1981 Trial by United States District Court April 29, 1982 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of United States District Court April 29, 1982 June 25, 1982 August 2, 1982 2 Order of United States District Court filed April 26, 1982 Notice of Appeal by Defendants from Order of United States District Court filed April 26, 1982 Record on Appeal Delivered to United States Court of Appeals II. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit August 3, 1982 March 22, 1983 May 8, 1984 May 8, 1984 June 22, 1984 August 10, 1984 August 10, 1984 Certified Original Record Argued Before Circuit Judge Mikva, Circuit Judge Edwards, and Senior Circuit Judge Swygert (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Cir- cuit) Opinion for the United States Court of Appeals filed by Senior Circuit Judge Swygert Judgment by the United States Court of Appeals that the Judgment of the United States District Court Ap- pealed from is Vacated and the Case is Remanded Appellee’s Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Bane Per Curiam Order Denying Appellee’s Petition for Rehearing Per Curiam Order En Bane Denying Appellee’s Suggestion for Rehearing En Bane August 10, 1984 August 10, 1984 August 27, 1984 January 14, 1985 June 18, 1985 3 Statement Dissenting from Denial of Suggestion to Hear Case En Bane filed by Circuit Judge Starr Statement Dissenting from Denial of Suggestion to Hear Case En Bane filed by Cireuit Judge Ginsburg, in which Cireuit Judge Scalia Concurs Mandate Issued Notice from Clerk, United States Su- preme Court that Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed January 7, 1985 Certified Copy of Order from Clerk, United States Supreme Court Grant- ing Petition for Writ of Certiorari on June 17, 1985 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Action No, 81-1522 S. SIMCHA GOLDMAN, 449 North Laurel Avenue Los Angeles, California 90048 (213) 655-9410 Plaintiff, v. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, The Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20301 and SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORUVE, The Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20301 Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Filed July 2, 1981) 1, This action arises under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1361. 2. Plaintiff is a member of the Orthodox Jewish faith, and is an ordained rabbi. Defendants are officials of the United States of America and this action is brought against them in their official capacities. 3. Plaintiff is a Captain in the United States Air Force on active duty, and has been stationed at March Air 4) Force Base (‘‘March Af'B’’), Riverside, California, since September 1977. Plaintiff is currently assigned to the Mental Health Clinic of the Air Force Regional Hospital at March AFB, where he serves as a clinical psychologist. 4. Orthodox Jewish religious practice requires a Jew- ish male to keep his head covered at ali times. In observ- ance of that religious requirement, plaintiff wears a skull cap (‘‘yarmulke”) at all times. 5. Plaintiff has continuously worn a yarmulke since prior to his assignment to March AFB. Since his assign- ment to Mareh AFB in September 1977, plaintiff has con- tinuously worn a yarmulke, including while he is in uni- form, as required by his religion. 6. For the three and one-half year period from Sep- tember 1977, to May 1981, plaintiff’s superior officers at March AFB raised no objection to his wearing a yarmulke while in uniform. 7. On May 8, 1981, Colonel Joseph Gregory, the Hos- pital Commander at March AFB, informed plaintiff that wearing a yarmulke violated the Air Force’s Dress Code Regulation (AFR) 35-10. Colonel Gregory ordered plain- tiff to cease wearing a yarmulke indoors while in uniform at all places on base, except that plaintiff was specifically permitted to continue wearing his yarmulke while working and in uniform at the Regional Hospital located on the base. 8. Upon receiving the May 8, 1981, order, plaintiff informed Colonel Gregory that the wearing of a yarmulke was required by his Orthodox Jewish religion and was a protected religious observance pursuant to the First Amendment. Plaintiff requested permission to continue his previously unchallenged practice of wearing a yar- 6 mulke at all times and in all places while in uniform at March AFB. Plaintiff’s request was denied. 9. On May 19, 1981, in an effort to avoid litigation, plaintiff’s counsel contacted the Office of the Air Force Assistant General Counsel for Manpower and Personnel Affairs, explained plaintiff’s situation, and requested that the Air Force continue to permit plaintiff to wear his yarmulke at all times as he had for the past three and one- half years. Counsel’s efforts to resolve this matter through negotiations extended over a period of several weeks, but were not successful. 10. On June 23, 1981, plaintiff was ordered by Col- onel Gregory to cease wearing his yarmulke anywhere while in uniform at March AFB, including the Regional Hospital. Plaintiff was again informed that wearing a yarmulke violated AFR 35-10. 11. Plaintiff explained once again the nature of his religious observance and his desire to continue wearing his yarmulke at all times, as required by his religion. Plain- tiff requested permission from Colonel Gregory to appear for duty in civilian clothes, pursuant to an express exemp- tion contained in AFR 35-10, so that his wearing of a yar- mulke would not violate defendants’ interpretation of the regulation. Plaintiff’s request was denied. 12. On June 24, 1981, plaintiff received a letter of reprimand from Colonel Gregory for continuing to wear his yarmulke while in uniform in violation of the June 23 order, and in violation of defendants’ interpretation of AFR 35-10. Plaintiff has been threatened with additional sanctions, including a court-martial, for violation of the ~ June 23 order and for violation of defendants’ interpreta- tion of AF'R 35-10. 13. Following receipt of the letter of reprimand, plaintiff submitted a written request to Colonel Gregory that formal processing of the letter of reprimand be de- layed until June 29, 1981, the date upon which plaintiff’s military area defense counsel was scheduled to return to March AFB. Plaintiff’s request was granted. 14. On June 25, 1981, plaintiff was summoned to Col- onel Gregory’s office and was informed by Colonel Greg- ory that, in light of plaintiff’s current problems with the Air Force, resulting from plaintiff’s insistence upon wear- ing his yarmulke despite the provisions of AFR 35-10, Colonel Gregory had decided to withdraw a previously posi- tive recommendation he had submitted in favor of plain- tiff’s application for a one year extension of his service in the Air Force, and had, that day, submitted a negative recommendation on that application. 15. The orders issued to plaintiff prohibiting him from wearing a yarmulke while in uniform at March AFB violate the First Amendment of the United States Consti- tution. 16. Plaintiff has exhausted all meaningful available channels to postpone enforcement of the June 23 order, or to have the order withdrawn. There is no further appeal within the Air Force from the punitive actions taken against plaintiff and threatened to be taken against plain- tiff, as specified in paragraphs 7 through 14 of this Com- plaint. 17. The actions already taken against plaintiff and the threat of additional sanctions against plaintiff, includ- ing criminal prosecution, if he does not cease wearing a yarmmike while in uniform, jeopardize plaintiff’s ability to observe deeply held religious beliefs, violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and jeop- ardize plaintiff’s ability to continue serving in and to be employed gainfully by the Air Force. 18. Any effort by defendants or anyone acting under their supervision or control to enforce or apply AFR 35-10 against plaintiff or any enlisted man who wears a yar- mulke for religious reasons, is an unconstitutional denial of rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Court enter an Order: 1. Declaring that the conduct described in para- graphs 7 through 14 of this Complaint violates the First ‘Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; 2. Declaring Air Force Dress Code Regulation (AFR) 35-10 invalid and unlawful as applied to any per- son who wears a yarmulke for religious reasons; 3. Enjoining the defendants, their agents, subordi- nates, or anyone acting in concert with them from applying or enforcing AFR 35-10 against plaintiff or any person who wears a yarmulke for religious reasons; 4. Directing defendants, their agents, subordinates or anyone acting in concert with them, to expunge from plain- tiff’s military records all references to disciplinary action, sanctions or penalties (including Colonel Gregory’s nega- tive recommendation concerning plaintiff’s continued mili- tary service) resulting directly or indirectly from plain- tiff’s insistence upon wearing a yarmulke, despite the 9 provisions of AFR 35-10; 5. Awarding plaintiff damages, attorneys’ fees and costs of this action; and 6. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. /s/ Nathan Lewin/DJB Dated: 7/2/81 /8/ MILLER, CASSIDY, LARROCA & LEWIN Suite 500 2555 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 293-6400 David J. Butler Robert A. Smith BROWNSTEIN ZEIDMAN AND SCHOMER Suite 900 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 457-6500 Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Action No. 81-1522 S. SIMCHA GOLDMAN, Plaintiff, v. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et ai., Defendants. ANSWER First Defense The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Second Defense Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative rem- edies. Third Defense The defendants answer the numbered paragraphs of the complaint as follows: 1. This paragraph contains plaintiff’s characteriza- tion of his action, jurisdiction allegations, and conclusions of law, to which no answer is required, but insofar as an answer may be deemed to be required, defendants deny. 2. Admit. 3. Defendants admit this paragraph accurately de- scribes plaintiff’s status in the Air Force on the date the complaint was filed. Defendants aver that as of Septem- ber 1, 1981, plaintiff is no longer on active duty in the Air Force, no longer is assigned to the Air Force Regional 11 Hospital at March Air Force Base. Defendants further aver that plaintiff still holds a Reserve commission in the United States Air Force. 4. Deny first sentence. Deny second sentence, except admit that plaintiff wears a skull cap (‘‘yarmulke’’) at all times. 5. Admit first sentence. Admit second sentence, ex- cept deny that wear of the yarmulke is required by plain- tiff’s religion. 6. Admit. 7. Admit. 8. Admit. 9. Admit. 10. Admit. 11. Admit first sentence, except deny that the wear of a yarmulke is required by plaintiff’s religion. Admit second and third sentences. 12. Admit. 13. Admit. 14. Admit. 15. This paragraph contains conclusions of law and not allegations of fact to which an answer may be deemed required, but insofar as an answer may be deemed re- quired, defendants deny. > 16. Admit first sentence. Admit seconc sentence, except deny there is no further appeal within the Air Force concerning the letter of reprimand plaintiff has re- 12 ceived. Defendants aver that the Air Foree Board for Correction of Military Records offers plaintiff a forum for exhaustion of administrative remedies under 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (See 32 C.F.R. § 865.1 et. seq.). 17. This paragraph contains plaintiff’s characteriza- tion of his action and conclusions of law, to which no an- swer is required, but insofar as an answer may be deemed to be required, defendants deny. 18. This paragraph contains plaintiff’s conclusions of law to which no answer is required, but insofar as an answer may be deemed to be required, defendants deny. Defendants are not required to answer plaintiff’s Prayer of Relief. Answering further, any and all allega- tions of the Complaint not hereinbefore specifically an- swered are denied. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Charles F. C. Ruff United States Attorney /s/ Royee C. Lamberth Assistant United States Attorney /s/ R. Craig Lawrence Assistant United States Attorney OF COUNSEL: FRANCIS S. MORAN, JR. Major, USAF General Litigation Division Office of the Judge Advocate Genera] Washington, D. C. 20330 > ©... | ie heeded | co —= — _— — — = — Cf) handheld | co oe) toad PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION EXHIBIT “A” 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Action No. 81-1522 S. SIMCHA GOLDMAN, Plaintiff, v. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et. al., Defendants. DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES The following responses by defendants to plaintiff’s interrogatories are served upon plaintiff pursuant to Rule 33, Fed. R. Civ. P.: 2. With respect to plaintiff’s service in the Air Force from September 1977 through May 7, 1981: (a) State in detail and with specificity why plaintiff was permitted to wear his yarmulke while in uni- form at March Air Force Base during the entire period; (b) Describe in detail with specificity, including the date(s) of and all persons involved in, each and every adverse comment, reaction or criticism re- ceived by defendants or any of their agents or subordinates regarding plaintiff’s wearing of his yarmulke while in uniform during the entire period; and (c) Identify each and every document which relates directly or indirectly to your answers to this in- terrogatory. 15 Response to 2. (a) (b) When Captain Goldman came to March AFB in 1977 he kept a low profile in and about the hos- pital. He did not take his meals in the cafeteria and did not often leave his duty station at the mental health clinic. To and from work he wore his service cap over the yarmulke. In 1978 Col. Smith, the hospital commander, received a com- plaint about wearing the yarmulke at the hospital. He contacted the Surgeon General at HQ SAC and was advised that it was his decision as com- mander whether or not to allow it. Col. Smith decided not to confront Capt. Goldman over the issue. In August of 1980 Col. Smith was replaced by Col. Gregory. Col. Gregory questioned wheth- er or not Capt. Goldman should be allowed to wear the yarmulke while in uniform. He was advised by Col. Robert Young, then hospital ad- ministrator, now a member of HQ SAC/SG staff, that the previous hospital commander had allowed it. Because of this Col. Gregory decided not to confront Capt. Goldman at that time. In 1978 the hospital commander, Col. Smith, re- ceived a complaint from CMS. George Johnson, the NCOIC of nursing services, about Capt. Gold- man wearing a yarmulke on duty at the hospital. In April 1981, Maj. Rakowsky received a com- plaint from Capt. Daniel F. Bouchard, circuit trial counsel, that Capt. Goldman had appeared to testi- fy in a court-martial wearing a skull cap. This complaint was relayed to the hospital commander, Col. Gregory. 16 (c) Affidavit of CMS. George Johnson dated 23 July 81. Affidavit of Capt. Daniel F. Bouchard dated 16 July 81. 3. With respect to Colonel Gregory’s order issued to plaintiff on or about May 8, 1981, directing plaintiff to stop wearing his yarmulke while in uniform at all places at March Air Force Base other than the Regional Hos- pital: (a) Explain in detail and with specificity the basis for Colonel Gregory’s order; (b) State whether you maintain that plaintiff’s wearing of his yarmulke while in uniform at the Regional Hospital violates the provisions of AFR 35-10; (c) Identify each and every person with whom Col- onel Gregory consulted in connection with his de- cision to issue the May 8, 1981 order to plaintiff; and (d) Identify each and every document which relates directly or indirectly to your answers to this inter- rogatory. Response to 3. (a) Prior to April of 1981 Col. Gregory had been ad- vised and believed that Capt. Goldman had per- mission to wear the yarmulke at the hospital. In April 1981 he was advised that Capt. Goldman had appeared to testify in a court-martial wear- ing the yarmulke in violation of AFR 35-10. Based upon this information and Col. Gregory’s understanding that Col. Smith had allowed Capt. 17 Goldman to wear the yarmulke at the hospital, Col. Gregory ordered Capt. Goldman to wear the yarmulke only at the hospital. (b) Yes. (c) Col. Charles C. McDonald Maj. Ronald J. Rakowsky Lt. Col. Ledro Justice Col. James R. Plummer Col. Julius Archie (d) Memo dated 8 May 1981. * . * 5. With respect to Colonel Gregory’s June 23, 1981 order to plaintiff directing that he remove his yarmulke at all times and at all places while in uniform: (a) Explain in detail and with specificity why Col- onel Gregory changed his order from that initial- ly issued on May 8, 1981; (b) Identify each and every individual with whom Colonel Gregory consulted with respect to the is- suance of his June 23, 1981 order; and (c) Identify each and every document which related directly or indirectly to your answers to this in- terrogatory. Response to 5. (a) From the period of May 8, 1981 to June 23, 1981, the parties in this dispute were attempting to reach an acceptable compromise. Col. Plummer, the installation Chaplain contacted Chaplain Madden at HQ SAC/HC in order to ascertain 18 whether or not the wearing of a yarmulke was a requirement of the Jewish Orthodox religion. Chaplain Madden did not know so Col. Plummer contacted Rabbi Selwyn G. Geller at HQ ATC/ HC. Rabbi Geller advised Col. Plummer to con- tact the Jewish Welfare Board (JWB), Col. Plummer was advised by both Dr. Coram and Rabbi Messing at the JWB the wearing of a yar- mulke was highly recommended and encouraged but as not required. A Rabbi Kobrinetz, USAF Reserve colonel, was sent to March AFB to speak with base command personnel and Capt. Goldman in an attempt to resolve the matter. On June 15, 1981, while Rabbi Kobrinetz was at March AFB, Col. Gregory was contacted by Brig. Gen. Green- dyke, HQ SAC/SG, who advised Col. Gregory to order Goldman not to wear the yarmulke at any- time while in uniform. Col. Gregory spoke with Col. McDonald and was advised to take no action until Rabbi Kobrinetz had had an opportunity to speak with Captain Goldman. After all attempts to resolve the matter failed, on June 23, 1981, Col. Gregory ordered Capt. Goldman not to wear the yarmulke while in uniform. (b) Col. Plummer, Maj. Rakowsky, Col. McDonald, Brig. Gen. Greendyke, Col. (Rabbi) Kobrinetz. (c) Two memos for record dated 15 June 1981; memo for record dated 22 June 1981; three memos for record dated 23 June 1981; order dated 23 June 1981. 6. With respect to Colonel Gregory’s issuance of a letter of reprimand to plaintiff on June 24, 1981: (a) (b) (c) (d) 19 State in detail and with specificity why Colonel Gregory felt it necessary and appropriate to is- sue a letter of reprimand or to pursue any sanc- tions against plaintiff for his failure to remove his yarmulke while in uniform; Identify each and every individual with whom Colonel Gregory consulted with respect to the issuance of a letter of reprimand te plaintiff on June 24, 1981; State the substance of each and every discussion between or among Colonel Gregory and any in- dividual identified in response to subparagraph (b) above; and Identify each and every document which relates directly or indirectly to your answers to this in- terrogatory. Response to 6. (a) (b) On June 23, 1981 Capt. Goldman was given a direct and lawful order by his commander, Col. Gregory, not to wear his yarmulke while in uni- form. On June 24, 1981 Capt. Goldman appeared in uniform, wearing the yarmulke, in violation of Col. Gregory’s order and in violation of AFR 35-10. For this reason he received a letter of rep- rimand for violation of AFR 35-10. Col. MeDonald, Col. Blaisdale, Col. Plummer, Lt. Col. Hayslett, Major Rakowsky. (c) Discussions with the above parties involved the active participation and advice of Major Ronald J. Rakowsky in his capacity as legal advisor. The (d) 20 substance of any discussion is therefore privi- leged. In one discussion subsequent to the June 24, 1981 letter of reprimand and prior to Capt. Goldman’s response Col. Gregory spoke with Col. McDonald and was advised that any action taken should be commensurate with the offense and that if Capt. Goldman continued to violate Col. Gregory’s order and AFR 35-10 future prog- ressive levels of discipline should be taken. Two memos for record dated 15 June 1981; memo for record dated 22 June 1981; three memos for record dated 23 June 1981; order dated 23 June 1981; two memos for record dated 24 June 1981. 7. With respect to Colonel Gregory’s decision to with- draw his previously positive recommendation on plain- tiff’s application for an extension of service in the Air Force and to substitute, in its stead, a negative recommen- dation ou that application: (a) (b) State in detail and with specificity why Colonel Gregory felt it necessary and appropriate to withdraw his previously positive recommenda- tion and substitute a negative recommendation against plaintiff for his failure to remove his yar- mulke while in uniform; Identify each and every individual with whom Colonel Gregory consulted with respect to his withdrawal of his previously positive recommen- dation and substitution of a negative recommenda- tion against pleintiff on June 24, 1981; (c) 21 State the substance of each and every discussion between or among Colonel Gregory and any indi- vidual identified in response to subparagraph (b) above; and (d) Identify each and every document which relates directly or indirectly to your answers to this in- terrogatory. Response to 7. (a) In early May 1981 the Air Force Office of Special (b) Investigation (AFOSI) completed an investiga- tion of Capt. Goldman concerning allegations that he had received monetary compensation for work performed off-base during normal duty hours. At this same time Capt. Goldman went to Col. Greg- ory with a request to extend his service in order to apply for indefinite reserve status. Because of the unfavorable information contained in the AFOSI report Col. Gregory gave Capt. Goldman a tentative positive recommendation. When Capt. Goldman’s subsequent behavior showed a disre- gard for Air Force regulations and command authority Col. Gregory decided to withdraw the tentative recommendation and replace it with a negative recommendation. Col. McDonald, Col. Blaisdell, Col. Plummer, Lt. Col. Hayslett, Major Rakowsky. (c) The discussions involved the active participation of Major Ronald J. Rakowsky in his capacity as legal advisor and the substance of said discus- sions is privileged. / 22 (d) AFOSI investigation No. 8118D95-18; letter of reprimand; request to establish active digest file with attachments. ____8. Identify each and every person, civilian or military, who has complained to defendants or any of their agents concerning plaintiff’s wearing of a yarmulke while in uni- form at March Air Force Base, and with respect to each person identified, state the substance of their objections, the date on which each such objection was made, and to whom each such objection was made, and identify each and every document which relates directly or indirectly to your response to this interrogatory. Response to 8. CMS George Johnson, NCOIC of Nursing Services, complained to Col Lawrence Smith, the hospital com- mander, in 1978. He related that several of the younger Air Force members were upset that they were required to live up to standards of dress and Grooming while Capt. Goldman was not. In April of 1981 Capt. Daniel F. Bouchard, Cireuit Trial Counsel, complained to Major Ronald J. Rakowsky, the Staff Judge Advocate, that Capt. Goldman had appeared to testify in a court-martial wearing a skull cap in vio- lation of AFR 35-10. CMS. Johnson has executed an affidavit dated 23 July 81 and Capt. Bouchard has executed an affidavit dated 17 July 81. Charles Thompson (MSgt, retired) sent a letter to Maj. Gen. Emmanuel, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Man- power and Personnel, a copy of which is delivered herewith to plaintiff. H. Katz sent a postcard to Judge Robinson, ¢/o March Air Force Base, a copy of which is delivered herewith to plaintiff. Ted Barbee sent 23 a letter to the Secretary of Defense, a copy of which is delivered herewith to plaintiff. 9. With respect to Air Force Regulation 35-10: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) State all exemptions which have been permitted by the Air Force to the express requirements of AFR 35-10, and identify all individuals who have requested such exemptions and all documents which relate directly or indirectly to requests for such exemptions; State whether the Air Force allows mini:ters or other religious functionaries to wear clothing other than that specified in AFR 35-10, and if so, describe in detail and with specificity each varia- tion permitted ; State whether there are other individuals in the Air Force whom the Air Force allows to wear a yarmulke despite the provisions of AFR 35-10, and, if so, identify each and every such individual ; State whether the Air Force allows for any relig- ious observances which violate the express provi- sions of AFR 35-10 and, if applicable, state in de- tail and with specificity each and every such re- ligious observance which the Air Force allows, and identify each and every person in the Air Force for whom such variations are granted; Identify each and every document which relates directly or indirectly to your answers to this in- terrogatory. 24 Response to 9. (a) No exemptions to AFR 35-10 requirements have been granted to members as a result of their in- dividual request. While provisions for exemption exist in the regulation they apply to certain cate- gories or groups of persons based on medical rea- sons or operational necessity. Currently, unit commanders are authorized to exempt individual members from shaving as part of the medical treatment for Pseudofolliculitis Barbae (ingrown hairs). Exemptions are granted based on medi- cal recommendation and not individual request and normally do not exceed 90 days. As such, they are temporary in nature and do not constitute a permanent change to appearance standards. Exemption authority for beards is contained in AFR 35-10, Table 1-1, Line 1. Additionally, the Commander, Office of Spe- cial Investigations, has been delegated authority to exempt dress and grooming requirements for selected members engaged in investigative and counterintelligence situations where strict adher- ence to the standards could compromise the opera- tions. Waiver requests and approval, dated 29 September 1974, 4 November 1974 and 5 May 1978. Authority for exemptions in both of the above cases is delegated to field commanders for use on an as required basis. Names of members granted the waivers are not readily available as we have established no requirement for units to report the desired data. (b) (c) (d) 25 Chaplains and chapel management personnel wear vestments, appropriate civilian attire, or the pre- scribed Air Force uniform when they conduct or assist with worship services, liturgies and cere- monies. (para 11, AFR 265-1) These are nor- mally scheduled occasions, such as Sunday/Sab- bath services and scheduled services on holy days established in the liturgical calendar of the re- ligious group to which the celebrant belongs. Vestments, or portions thereof, might also be worn by a chaplain in performance of emergency rites, such as baptisms, confessions, or last rites for the dying, which by nature are not scheduled events. In such cases, wearing of non-uniform items would be only during the actual perform- ance of the rite. Vestments of civilian attire worn for scheduled observances, or portions of such vestments worn for emergency ministries, are limited to those prescribed by the religious group to which the celebrant belongs. Exemption authority for AFM 35-10 standards of dress and grooming rests with the Air Force Man- power and Personnel Center, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas. No exemption has been granted to wear a yarmulke. Defendants have recently dis- covered an individual on active duty, Chaplain (Rabbi) Fred Lewin, who is known to wear a yarmulke in uniform. To our knowledge, he has not applied for nor been granted, an exemption to do so. Dress provisions described in paragraph (b) above although not specifically addressed in AFR 35-10 are permitted during scheduled religious ob- (e) 26 servances or emergency ministries for the dura- tion of services only. In addition, chaplains con- ducting military religious ceremonies give guid- ance for wear of military headgear. Otherwise, headgear will not be worn during religious serv- ices not associated with a military ceremony (AFR 35-10, paragraph 1-6h (2) (d)). Notwith- standing this restriction and the prohibition on wear of non-uniform items with the uniform, wear of the yarmulke while in uniform is allowed while attending Sabbath or holy day services. In these eases, the yarmulke is worn only within the con- fines of the facility in which the service is held, and only for the duration of the service. All documents are referenced in response 9. (a)- (d), above. 10. State whether the Air Force has made inquiry con- cerning, commissioned a study of, or otherwise sought to determine whether the wearing of yarmulke by an airman interferes with the Air Force’s performance of its military mission, and if so, identify each such inquiry, and identify each and every document which relates directly or indirect- ly to your answer to this interrogatory. Response to 10. No 11. Identify all studies made by the Air Force or relied upon by the Air Force concerning: (a) Psychological attitudes which contribute to mili- tary effectiveness; and (b) Development and maintenance of intrinsic moti- vation in the military setting; and 27 (c) The relationship between strict enforcement of a dress code and discipline, morale, esprit de corps and mission effectiveness; and (d) The formation of policies regarding uniformity of dress by Air Force personnel, including any harm to the Air Force’s military mission caused by lack of uniformity. Response to 11. It is impossible to determine specifie studies or the confluence of empirical data upon which defendants can reasonably state decisions have been based concerning the four subparagraphs of question 11. However, in an at- tempt to provide plaintiff with an available source of em- pirical knowledge in these areas, defendants have attached hereto listings of studies in each of the four areas, not necessarily limited to those made by the Air Force. Such studies are available for production at the Defense Tech- nical Information Center, Cameron Station, Virginia, and may be inspected there. 13. State in detail and with specificity the basis upon which defendants contest the validity and/or authenticity of plaintiff’s religious belief and practice of wearing a yarmulke at all times; identify all persons with whom de- fendants or their agents have consulted with respect to the validity of plaintiff’s observances and practices; and iden- tify each and every document which relates directly or in- directly to your answers to this interrogatory. Response to 13. Col. James R. Plummer, the base Chaplain, contacted Chaplain Madden (HQ SAC/HC), Rabbi Geller (HQ 28 ATC/HC), Dr. Coram (Jewish Welfare Board). He was advised by Dr. Coram and Rabbi Messing that the wearing of a yarmulke is a time honored tradition of the Jewish culture. They further advised that although it is encour- aged it is not required. Defendant has also been advised by Rabbi Kobrinetz, a USAF Reserve colonel, that the wearing of a yarmulke is not required. The foregoing responses are based upon information fur- nished by the appropriate staff agencies. I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Exe- cuted on August 17 1981. /s/ Francis S. Moran, Jz. Mason, USAF General Litigation Division Office of The Judge Advocate General United States Air Force 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Action No. 81-1522 S. SIMCHA GOLDMAN, Plaintiff, v. CASPAR W. WEINBERGER, Secretary of Defense, Et Al., Defendants, Washington, D. C. Thursday, September 10, 1981 The above-entitled cause came on for trial before The Honorable Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., United States District Judge, commencing at 9:42 A.M. Appearances: On behalf of the Plaintiff: David J. Butler, Esq. Nathan Lewin, Esq. Robert Smith, Esq. On behalf of the Defandants: R. Craig Lawrence, Esq. Assistant United States Attorney Maj. Frank Moran, U. S. Air Force Air Force Litigation Division 30 (p. 10) MR. LAWRENCE: May it please the court: Iam Craig Lawrence, Assistant United States Attorney. I represent the defendants in this action. With me at counsel’s table is Major Frank Moran of the Air Force Litigation Division. He will assist in the presentation of the defense. Your Honor needs very little further introduction into the case currently before you. The critical question re- maining for Your Honor’s determination is whether the Air Force is able to justify the basis for the regulation and its requirement that uniform dress and appearance standards are necessary to prepare the Air Force to per. form its mission. Your Honor, we will call three witnesses. Those wit- nesses will reflect in two parts. General Usher will testify briefly with regard to mission impact and the necessity for the regulation. (p. 11) Chief Master Sergeant Matthews will tes- tify as to, in particular, reactions to the determinations which have been made as a result of the awareness of Captain Goldman’s wearing of the yarmulke. And, finally, Chaplain Reeves will testify briefly about religious practices and traditional dresswear of other religions. Your Honor, on that basis, the defendants would call their first witness, Major General Usher, to the stand. The Court. Very well. 31 (p. 12) Direct Examination BY MR. LAWRENCE: Q. General Usher, would you please state your full name for the record. A. Iam Major General William R. Usher. Q. General Usher, how long have you been in the Air Force approximately? A. I have been in the Air Force about 26 years. Q. General Usher, would you please briefly describe your educational background. A. Iam a graduate of Yale University with a degree in Economies, and I have a master’s degree from Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration. And I am also a graduate of the Armed Forces Staff College. Q. General Usher, if you would, please, for the court briefly describe what the mission of the Air Force is today. A. The United States Air Force, of course, is an in- strument of national security of our nation and is respon- sible for, in concert with the other military services, de- fending this nation against our enemies. In short, that means conducting combat operations against an enemy. Q. What goes into the makeup of a fighting force or a (p. 13) combat ready fighting force, in particular, the _Air Force? 32 A. I think the essence of a successful combat force, of course, involves equipment sufficient to carry into bat- tle to the enemy, weapons which are effective; but, most important, it involves people who are highly trained, motivated, disciplined, and molded into a fighting unit. Q. General Usher, what part does teamwork play in the makeup of a combat ready fighting force? A. Teamwork is certainly extremely important, in- deed, in many respects, it is the cutting edge. If I can use, for example, in Air Force combat opera- tions, for instance, we are very much involved in maxi- mizing the number of sorties that we get out of aircraft. What we want to be able to do is to carry that fight to the enemy as much as we possibly can. What we are much engaged in then is putting together a sort of a well-oiled machine of people, a team, if you will, when an aircraft lands from a mission, to immediate- ly refuel it and so forth, rearm it, and get it on its way again. That requires a very high degree of teamwork that has to be practiced a great deal in peacetime to meet needs in wartime. Q. General Usher, what part does motivation play in the makeup of an effective combat ready fighting force? A. Well, again, it is part of that cutting edge. (p. 14) We are a volunteer force, and that is initial element, if you will, of motivation; and the people come into the air force voluntarily. And, of course, when they do so, they do agree to adhere to certain standards. 33 But to the point of motivation per se, we know that in combat operations that willingness to give the extra effort, the willingness to do that which is above and be- yond, more often than not results in success in combat. Q. General Usher, where does discipline come into play in the makeup of an effective fighting force? A. Well, of course, combat inevitably involves people’s lives; and both for commanders and subordinates, discipline is just absolutely essential because you are ask- ing people to do things that may result in them being in- jured, them being wounded, and them losing their lives. And you have to be sure again that this teamwork approach works, that it does not break down, that every- body knows their task, they carry it out in a truly obedient way, and according to the way they have been taught. You must be able to rely on them. Otherwise, if you cannot, the combat effectiveness of the unit will break down and you are thereby endangering a lot more lives. Q. General Usher, where does esprit de corps fit into the makeup of an effective combat ready fighting force? A. Well, we know from experience that people who are (p. 15) proud of their organization, who are not only caused to subordinate their personal interests to the pur- poses and mission of the organization, but do so willingly and do so as a voluntary matter that they want to serve the purposes of the mission and are proud to do that, then we know we have a more effective fighting unit. Q. General Usher, what part does image play in the preparation and readiness of a combat ready fighting force? 34 A. Well, of course, we are a public institution; and all of our members, because we are a uniformed service and people anywhere they go—around here or anyplace— we represent the United States Air Force. And we represent the United States Government, its officers and men of a uniformed service. Now, we are in the business, of course, of recruiting people from the American public. We are in the process of gaining public support for the kinds of things that we do in peacetime and then in wartime. And we are in the business of trying to retain those people in our military service after we have invested great amounts of money in training them and so forth. So when people look at us, they think, ‘‘well, there is an example of who is in the Air Force or the Army or the Navy and what have you.” And so our public image is very important to sustain- ing the United States Air Force as a force, as attracting good (p. 16) people, retaining good people, and thereby having top quality people who are proud of their organiza- tion and so forth that they will be a more effective fighting force than if we were less than that. Q. General Usher, are you familiar, in general, with the requirements of Air Force Regulation 35-10? A. Yes, I am. Q. Would you briefly describe what the regulation requires. A. The regulation is many pages long. It sets up in quite extensive detail what the requirements are for the 35 wearer of the uniform, men and women in the active and reserve forces of the United States Air Force. And it states as its purpose that, of course, we are a uniformed force; anc ., I have just outlined, that pride and esprit and discipline and that sort of thing is impor- tant, and it is manifested in the wearer of the uniform. Again, it portrays the subordination of personal in- terests to the purpose of the organization, which is essen- tial for an effective military force. Q. General Usher, are there exceptions to the re- quirements, dress and appearance requirements, of AFR 35-10? A. Yes, there are a few. First of all, for instance, if an individual were to be injured or wounded in combat or something like that, (p. 17) of course, a person would Necessarily, because they did not have an alternative, would have to depart from a strict reading of Air Force Regulation 35-10 with respect to the wearer of the uniform. Q. Could you give an example, General Usher? A. Well, let us say that somebody was wounded in his arm or something like that, and it required him to wear a sling, Air Force Regulation 35-10,D PHOM JO YORRIIUF a4) 40} UOHRIDOSsy JuIds Ajo SNVW J° 4apsc Ajo S}sI}UBAPY ABG-u}UaAVS jO BDUBIAjUO jeJaUay Pod jo yey UONepUNoY ayy sures Aeq 49}}e7 $0 ¥SIUY> SNsaf jo ydunyuy }SI}UBIDS ISUYD JO YOuNyD ayL POD JO YUsspP]IYD SYyL UOI}]eOD UeRI}sSIUYD Aajaxieg (s)}uaWasiINbay wuOyUr/ssaiq jeI9edg = dnoin/uoneuiwouseg SdNOUD JOVLINIH NVILSIYHD "y9z “d ‘uayeyuM ‘T-W ‘@Z-1 “€L-SOL VG ‘26 “d ‘uajeyum ‘9S-rS ‘d ‘uipny ‘HW96L ‘d ‘eog ‘LV ‘€b-1 [L-EL-S9OL VG ‘HEL “d ‘uayeyM ‘OZ ‘d ‘peaw ‘WEL “d ‘eog ‘T-W ‘LL-I ‘€L-S9L VG "G6 ‘d ‘peaw ‘Z-V ‘S9-| -€L-SOL VO ‘HEEL “d ‘peayw ‘T-V ‘6S-1 “€L-SOL VG ‘HZOL ‘d ‘peaw ‘T-W ‘ZS-1 “€L-S9L VG ‘Z-V ‘8b-l -€L-SOL VG uOoneWOojU] payuig 4210 (Y) uoleulWOoUsC ay} JO Ja}siuly (¥) SO uoHeWw -JOJU] DIQng jeuoneu -lwOUsGg ‘10}D9IIG (VY) }UapIsaid -2d1A JeUONeUIWOUEG (Y) senu04 pouny 0} Aujsiul—Z_ UO day}IW -WO7) ;euOIeUuIWwOUsG ‘uewuey) (Y) AlejyesdaS jesQuay jeuoleulwousg (y) Aueyausas jesQuay jeuoHeUIWOUEG (Vv) ‘Aseyij!W-UON) use}dey> jeuoNeulWoUusGg UOIEULOjU] JO BDuNOS jeUulIsUO QUON aUON QUON QUON aUON QUON SUON (s)}UaWalINboy poy jo YyONyD epPIMpHOM ay) jeuoNeUsa}uy AVM UL (Sassau}IAA S,YeAoyal) AJaID0S PRI] Y JBjQig 4amMoyydIIe/M sjures Aeg Jaye] JO }sluys sNsof jO ydINYD peziuessoay oul spuaisy JO Ayainos snoisyay ydinys ayuOUuUeW sy] SaysIUI—: ueI}SIuYyD JPUOIeUJI}UY wioyiur)/ssaig jeineds dnos5/uoneunmousg (PAUOD) SdNOUD JOVLIYIH NVILSIMHD 243 (‘Sspaepueys jeuol -eulwouap Aq pamoye si ad1 “Mas Aleyiw yng “pasajua si a21Aas Aseyjiws UayM jeUuo!} -doO aie ssaup jo sapow asau) JOU JO J9YJ9YM O} se ajajd “wodu! UOHeUOJU; :a}J0Ny) ‘BUIYJO]D ayYyYM ajdwis seam Siaquiaw JayIQ ‘ago’ uo1y “L“V ‘SL-il (V) 40}1|PZ -Jes 94} 4kRaM (poOoyyUOW) sap eBO,A jesZaju; ‘L-€L-SOL VG SUONRIIGNg -1O seAuURS ay} jo siaqway -wesysy epueuRpiyrjes ‘sBul ~44BW BS9yY} JO 3/qQead1}0U }sOW 94} Be BSOU BY} JO aspig ay} ye yuIod padeys-A e 0} awod YII4YM peayasoy ay} UO saul; ‘Hrg ‘d ‘uajeump jayjesed = ayiymM OM ‘sadeid ‘yS-Sp ‘d ‘uipny 2Ajam} ul Apog ay} ayeiodap ‘H6EL “d ‘uassajag sdusysew Aej> 40 yOja} ‘Buryjeq ‘H8ZL “d ‘eog sayy “WEY JO YyMOUs s,yJUOW (euysiuy ey) ‘T-V ‘PL-Il (WW) Arejasdag yeuol3ay e uey} as0wW ou Ayjensn pue — ssausnojsuo> euysiy 4O4 “€L-SOL Va JeuoNeulIWOUsGg (Yy/S) 41eY JO YN} e 4eAaM SajeW Ajaid0g jeuoNeUsa}U] ayy ‘HZOL “d ‘uajeym ‘89-79 ‘d ‘uipny ‘H88L “d ‘eog (Y) dequiaw jyeIS ‘T-V ‘8-1] JUaWyed|ag UOHeWOJU; “EL-SOL VQ = -NIGNng jeuoNeUulWwoUaG SUON UOISSI: 3431] BUIAIG UOI}eWOjU] uoIeWJOjUl (s)}uawasinbay PIU IYO JO BDINOS jeUIsUO WHOS /SSa1q jeInIadg ~=dnoin/uoNeUuIWwoUag SdNOUD IJOVLINIH NVIGNI ‘WSZ “d ‘uajeuM ‘O9L ‘d ‘uas.iajag ‘WZEL “d ‘uBWwa|peIeN ‘HOSL “d ‘eog (uOney pew ‘T-W ‘6L-I (y) saquay jeyuapuadsues) [!2UNOD “EL-S9L VO Jejs jeuoeN QUON BAIJNDIXY UP|d POM (“S8AI}D2IIP Aseyyjius Aue sapaouedns pue peaAego aq jsnw ‘uOI}ey paw Zuunp Ajjeusajul sO sONedNs snoizyjeas souo wooly Ajjeuss} -X9 PSAIBDI1 JAYJOYM *,,SBAI} -2011G yenyiids,, :a70N) “Buru -3aaa pue Bulusow ul painb -31 SI UOReYpPey ‘UO!}e}Ipaw 244 ‘L-* ‘€Z7-GL-I| (YW) 4OJeUIPIOOD UOHeW BuULuNp sjusWeS SIUM JeOM ‘L-€L-SOL VQ =-sOjsuy feUONBUIWOUSG 0} ,pepedxe,, aie siaquiay amue7) Aowulyy HS UOIJEULOJU] UOIJEWJOjU| (s)}ugwasinbay payuly 4ayYIO yO Buns jeulsuO usojur/ssaig jeipadsg = dnoin/uolneu;lwousd (PAUOD) S4NOUD JOVLINIH NVIGNI 245 ‘HEEL ‘H09 “d ‘peayw ‘T-V ‘SL-III “EL-SOL YG ‘T-V ‘LL-H -EL-SOL VG “L-V “OL-III ‘L-EL-SOL VG ‘H6r “d ‘eog ‘TL-Z-Hl ‘L-EL-SOL Va UONPULOjU PIU, JAYIO ‘SapyUe By} MOjaq pue ‘spuey ‘adej ay} Ajuo mous Aew sajewaj, “Apoq ay} jo (D) (e11YO IWC BYyy MOYs YdIYM sayjo]> JPUONPUIWOUSG J2aM O} UAPPIqsOy aie sajeyw (VY) Joquoyw eS jeuONeUIWOUsG QUON (D) 12110 jeuoneuliwmouag QUON ‘(Peq 0} Bula, UsyUM }d99x9) Sau} JaY}O [Je Je pue ‘Suyjea ‘BuiAeid usyM paia -AOD speay aArey jsnw sayew -3} PF sayew YyjOg “wom aq jsnwW =sjuaWes BulQY-3s007 (V) 4epea]“moys Aew spurl *20} 0} pray JPEUOHPUIWIOUSG WOs PasBAOD aq Jsnw sajewa, }SOM 9} UY] Wwejs] JO AiuUNnWWO,D POM J@PIO YNS aUL (We|s}| xXOpOYyUC) J9}U9) Diweys] aul QuaWaACW wIjsny yeuRpP) 4ajUaD GeH-ypew yeuey UOI}BULOJUY (S)}UQWasINbay jO 8D4NOS jeulsUuGO WOU) /SSaIQ |eIDIadg ~=dnoiyn/uONeulWwoUag SdNOUD DIWVISI 246 ‘yee “d ‘ueWwa|poIeN ‘T-W ‘OZ-SL-AI -E€L-S9L VG ‘€-V ‘6L-Al -€L-SOL VG ‘€-V “PL-Al “EL-S9L VO ‘T-V ‘S-Al “EL-S9L VO UONeWOJUT pajulg 124yIO (vy) 4opeo] jeudI}eUIWOUdG (7) Aueyossas BAIINIIXA jeUOIJeUIWOUIG (¥) [RIO jeUOIePUIWOUIG (vy) doysig BuIpIsald UOIJEULOJU| JO BDINOS |eUIZIIO (‘posinbas you ae jnq pesesnosua Ajsuos}s a1e— diysiom dnois ‘ai—,,S8uIIs,, :3}ON) *,,S8uNs,, dnoss Buunp ajAjs 9B JOJO WUOJIUN yO Ssaqo4 J2aM O} Payse aie SIAqWIIW IV * ,paaoidde,, s! uonoe Aeyyiw BulNp SulyjojS Jiay} yyeouJapun JO = apisul speaq jioAeid pue |jO19s & jO BuiAued 3y} ‘IAAQBMOH “OUON (",, pase -1nodua,, $1 jNq pasinbai jou s! siyj) “ssaquiaw ysow Aq yeaYy ay} JaAO JUaUUeS J9}NO UO UIOM SI aBpeq Apaqr] Weped ‘sow pje ye WOM aq jsnwW Quepued 4O Bul) jojnwe uy soul} pye ye Aresos ysiuppng Aued 0} pasesnod -ua oe sioquieaw jng “SUON Ja}S9YyDOY jO J9}U9D) UIZ Awapeoy nysoys Uss!YSIN Ayeq'y Payiag JO younyd ROUOWY yo saysunyd isiyppng (s)j}udwasinbay wuoyup/ssaig jeisedg = dnoin/uoinjeuiwousg SdNOUD IOVLINIH ISANVdVI ( 24 — ‘6b “d ‘jadais ‘HLZ “d BSiamzuasoy ‘ZSL “d ‘pray ‘WZ “d ‘eog ‘E-V ‘BL-EL-A -€L-S9L VO ‘ESL ‘d ‘peaw ‘WZ ‘d ‘eog ‘€-V ‘OL-A “€L-SOL VG ‘pSL “d ‘peayw ‘€-W ‘S-A “€L-SOL VO UONPWIOSU] Pa}Ulld JBUIO (VY) PoaWYy jo F9UNOD jediuiqqey *,,pasnbas,, si diyssoq, dnoiy 94} JO Jaquayw ‘uoljeuUuOjJU] 3}9;dwWoduU;] (Vv) Ajquiassy jesiuiqqey ay} jO Jaquoy (D) saquiay snowAuouy UOI}eUWIOjU} 9dINOS jeUIZsUO ajew ‘diysiom Buiing ‘(yjeq “Ges ay} UO jdadxa) saAeid suiwow je sajyew Aq WOM 9q O} Bue YdIYM ‘(Saiia}De]Aud) uljlj} Pue ‘sjmeys JadAeid ‘sded “IN4S “BIGQIG Maiqeay ‘syoog 4aAe1d ‘sjuaWa}NODR $}! pue MP] 9} JO {JOINS JO YRIO] saue §«6diysiOM JO} Aressadau se pajsi) ,juawdinbs wnwi -ulW,, BY, ,,diyssiom Ajayeaud JsNWW sjenplAipul,, ‘Wuasaid jOU ase ,,uoiesaiZuU05,, & 404 19g -winu pasinbas ay} 4) “Buruaaa pue uoouwaye ‘Suiusow :Ajrep sow} 3014} ‘diysiom d1Qnd JO} ,SOWI} PaxY,, ae saul QUON SUON (s)}uswasinboy wisiepn{ xopoyyO wusiepn{ sAIyeAIasUuO7) UONEN a} aes] M2jQaH 42RIg WIOJU/ssaiq jeINadg = dnoin/uoneulwouag SdNOUD HSIM3If ‘HZSL ‘d ‘peaw ‘HWZg “d ‘eog ‘€-V ‘8Z-A “€L-S9L VG ‘ySL ‘d ‘peayw ‘€-VW ‘EZ-A ‘€L-S9OL VG UOIeWOJU] payuig Jay30 (\) JuUaWwadR]g DuIgqey JO 10}DIIIG (vy) uonepuno, }SIUOIJNIJSUOIIY ysima[ ay} JO Jaquioy, UOIJEUWIOjU] JO BdsNOS jeUIzIIO QUON ,2q Aew 9y JOABIBYUM JO BWOY siy je Ajayeaud Aeid ued Ma{ Aare ‘saniuuas diysiom jeuonjesaid -uOd JO aduasqe ay) ul ‘ajed -I21ed pue puaye 0} paped -X9 ase SMaf }SIUOIJINI}JSUDDIY pue ‘sadlAjas JRAI}say pue Ye -qes ‘Ajrep 40} Saw} jasS,, oe asouy, ‘pasinbas si diysiom dnoin 4 ‘saAeid ul pasesue USYM PIJ9AOD aq jsNW ped} ‘PaJBAOD spRay 4194} daay 0} ,,pasinbas,, a1e sMmaf SMa{ UWOJIY SsMa{ }SIUO!NI}SUOIOY (s)}udWwasInbay wuoyiup/ssaig jeisadsg dnoin/uoneuiwousg (PAUOD) SdNOUD HSIMal aaoge se awes ‘H7Z “bog “E-W “ZL-L-IA ‘EL-S9OL VO 249 ‘T-V ‘O-IA *-L-EL-S9OL VO UOH}eWIOJU] payuig JayIO (vy) @aoqge se [RID1JJO aes (¥) [21IIYO jeuONeUuIWOUaGg (VY) [2IIYO jeuONeUIWOUIG UOI}BWOJU JO 2D4NOS jeUIBUCO vAoge se owes ‘sjued 9»1/ -indypo! pue wis pawwey ‘BuO] B IEAM SJDISIUIW [RIDIYO ‘sas3ep pue ‘jajaoeiq jaal}s e ‘seaMuapuN jeldads e :aue posnbas Osjy “peay ay} jo do} uO pal}-ueqgin} pue noun (spseaq Suipnyoul) sey sayy daay ysnwi syyxIS BuIdNDeId [Ty QUON (s)}uaWasINbay WUOJUL/SSaIG jeinads PLUCYG YHIS uo}eZIUesIO Ajo ‘Addey ‘uyyeapy seyuryoy dnoi5 /uoneuiwouag SdNOWOD HMIS 250 ‘p-V ‘bb-llA “EL-S9L VO ‘Z-V ‘BL-IIA -L-E€L-S9OL VO ‘79 ‘d ‘uasiajed ‘HOLL “d ‘eog ‘p-V ‘BE-1IA -€L-S9OL VG ‘y-V ‘ZE-IA “EL-S9OL VO ‘HZp ‘d ‘uayeyuM ‘7g ‘d ‘uassajad ‘p-W ‘SZ-IIA “-€L-S9OL VO ‘CZ ‘d ‘uasia}ed ‘HOLL “d ‘eog ‘y-W ‘6L-IA -€L-SOL VG “LOL “d ‘uasiajed ‘TE “d ‘peaw ‘€-V ‘PL-lIA -€L-S9L VO "79 “d ‘uassajod ‘€-V ‘“Z-IA -EL-SOL VG UOHeULOjU pajyulld J2uIO (D) sequisyw jPUOIeUIWOUIG (V) IR1IWO jPUO!I}eUIWOUIG (Y¥) [RIO jeuoHeUuIWOUIGg (¥) [RPO jeUONeUIWOUSG (¥) saquiaw 4yeIS jeudoNeulMmouUsGg (y) uoIZeWOjU] JO Ja}SIUIW (y) 4equiew eis jeUOIJeUIWOUIG (Y) 389g YBIH UONPWIOjU yO aduno¢g jeUuIsUO QUON QUON QUON QUON QUON QUON QUON QUON younys uRedeWY sAIeN ‘Duy ‘WOpsiA ssajasy jo younys) jeuOHNeUso}UY YL BOIM URLeUpPIey wnUal|IW A4L yO yey UONRPUNOY ayy AZojo}UaIIS JO YDINYD ueyes JO youNYyD yey Leyeg SOUDNM jO ji9UNOD UR JeWY (s)}uawasinbay wuOoylup/ssaig jeisadg dnoin/uonjeulwousg SdNOUOD AIHLO ‘t-V ‘6r-llA ‘EL-SOL VO ‘Lb ‘d ‘uassajeg ‘HrEz “d ‘peaw ‘HOEL “d ‘eog ‘T-W “LE-IA *L-EL-SOL VG ‘SUIMO ‘Wes1eg “€€-67-11A ‘L-EL-S9OL VG UON}BWWOjU] Ppa}ulg J2UIO 251 (VY) [21I91O jeuoHeuiWOUaG (D) [2P1O jeuoleUulWOUaGg “eo1ewe{ ul S49QWaAW jeNpiAIp -U! YIM e}UOD jeUOSJag UONPWIOJUl JO BD1NOS jeUIsUO QUON QUON ‘211QNd Ul PasaAOD peay daay pue (sjued ou) sassaip JO SPIYS JROM JSNW sayeWwa4 Youny) aji7] yesuaaiuy Jayseyw au} yO YDiNyD jesusaiuy suelejejsey (s)juawauinbay WOJU/ssaiq jeI9edg =dnoin/uoNneulMmoUusg (PAUOD) SdNOYO YIHLO 292 BIBLIOGRAPHY Berrett, Leonard; The Rastafarians; Beacon Press, 1977. Boa, Kenneth; Cults, World Religions, and You; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1977. Mead, Frank 8.; Handbook of Denominations in the United States; Nashville: Abingdon, 1980. Needleman, Jacob; The New Religions; Garden City: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1970. Owens, Joseph; Dread; Sangster, 1976. Petersen, William J.; Those Curious New Cults; New Caanan: Keats Publishing, Inc., 1973. wriy Religious Requirements and Practices: A Handbook Supplement for Chaplains: Department of the Army Pamphlet, No. 165-13 (April, 1978) and No. 165-13-1 (April, 1980). Roseneweig, Efraim M.; We Jews; New York: Hawthorn Books, Ine., 1977. Siegel, Richard; Strassfeld, Michael and Sharon; The Jew- ish Catalogue; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America. Whalen, William; Strange Gods: Contemporary Religious Cults in America; Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1981. ee -. = See 293 THE CONCISE CODE OF JEWISH LAW VOLUME ONE A GUIDE TO PRAYER AND RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE IN THE DAILY LIFE OF THE JEW 254 THE CONCISE CODE OF JEWISH LAW COMPILED FROM KITZUR SHULHAN ARUCH AND TRADITIONAL SOURCES A NEW TRANSLATION WITH INTRODUCTION AND HALACHIC ANNOTATIONS BASED ON CONTEMPORARY RESPONSA by RABBI GERSION APPEL VOLUME ONE KTAV PUBLISHING HOUSE, INC./NEW YORK YESHIVA UNIVERSITY PRESS/NEW YORK (C) COPYRIGHT 1977 KTAV PUBLISHING HOUSE, INC. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: The Concise code of Jewish law. Bibliography : p. CONTENTS: v. 1. A guide to prayer and religious observance in the daily life of the Jew. 1. Jewishlaw. 2. Jews—Rites and ceremonies. I. Appel, Gersion II. (Ganzfried, Solomon, 1804-1886. Kitsur Shulhan ’arukh, English. BM520.9.C66 296.3 77-26847 ISBN 0-87068-298-9 (v. 1) (LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CIP FEBRUARY 25, 1978) TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Introduction I, IT. IIT. IV. Commitment of Faith Constant Awareness of God Reminders of God’s Presence Tzitzit Tefillin Mezuzah Prayer and Divine Worship Addressing God in Prayer The Origin of Prayer The Prayer Book and the Order of the Daily Service Shema: Affirming the Unity of God Shemoneh Esreh: The Silent Prayer Kaddish: Sanctification of God’s Name Devotional Prayer in Hebrew The Synagogue and Congregational Prayer Traditional Modes of Prayer Reading the Torah and Torah Study Blessings and Grace After Meals The Nature and Meaning of Blessings Grace After the Méal Kashrut: Holiness and Jewish Identity Hallowing Everyday Life The Separateness of Israel Acknowledging the Divine Order Compassion for All Creatures Prohibition of Idolatrous Practices Recognition of God’s Proprietorship Preserving the Natural Order x] 20 256 THE CONCISE CODE OF JEWISH LAW Part I. Daily Prayer, Synagogue Worship, and om 99 pS Torah Study Prayer Upon Awakening Washing the Hands Rules of Dress and Conduct Cleanness of Person and Place Activities Prohibited Before the Morning Prayers Law of Tzitzit (Fringes) Laws of Tefillin (Phylacteries) Laws of Mezuzah Public Worship The House of Worship Rules for a Minyan . The Hazan (Sh’liah Tzibur) Preparation for Prayer Devotion in Prayer Blessings and Responses The Morning (Shaharit) Prayer The Morning Blessings The Verses of Song (P’sukei D’zimrah) Kaddish and Barchu The Sheme and Its Benedictions . Reading of the Shema . The Shemoneh Esreh _ Benedictions of the Shemoneh Esreh The Hazan’s Repetition of the Shemoneh Esreh Tahanun Rules Regarding the Sefer Torah . Those Called to the Torah . Rules for Reading the Torah Rules Regarding a Defective Scroll Conclusion of the Morning Service . The Mourner’s Kaddish . Rosh Hodesh . The Study of Torah 8 Oe ea hte Bo eo 4. do. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40), Part IT. 16. 257 TABLE OF CONTENTS Sanctity of the Torah Scroll and Holy Books Conditions to be Observed in Fulfillment of a Commandment The Traveler’s Prayer and Other Matters Pertaining to a Journey The Afternoon (Minhah) Prayer The Evening (Maariv) Prayer Making Up Omitted Prayers Prayer for the Night Individual and Occasional Blessings, Grace After Meals Blessings for Refreshments Taken Before the Meal Washing the Hands Before the Meals The Breaking of Bread and the Blessing Hamotz Rules and Proprieties During the Meal Blessings for Additional Food or Bever- age Taken During the Meal Washing the Hands and Grace After the Meal Reciting Grace in Company Blessings Before Eating or Drinking The Concluding Blessing Blessings for Bread and Pastry . Blessing for Wine Blessings for Fruit, Vegetables, and Other Foods Blessings for Soup and Juice of Fruits and Vegetables Principal and Accessory Foods Order of Precedence for Blessings Blessings Recited Erroneously Blessing for Food or Drink Served Addi- tionally ‘ Blessing for a Fragrant Scent Blessings for Good and Bad Tidings 20. 21. THE CONCISE CODE OF JEWISH LAW 258 Blessings on Beholding Sights in Nature and Other Sights The Blessing Hagomel and Blessings on Various Occasions Part Ill. The Kosher Home: Laws of K ashrut 1. Clean and Unclean Cattle, Beasts, Fowl, and Fish . Products of Unclean Beings . Laws of Slaughtering _ Defective Animals and Fowl _ Removal of Forbidden Fat, Veins, and Sinews 2 3 4 5 6. Prohibition of Eating Blood 7. Salting of Meat 8. Meat and Milk 9. Food Containing Worms or Insects 10. 11 12 13 14 15 Prohibitions Because of Danger to Health _ Ritual Immersion of Utensils _ Cleaning (Kashering) of Utensils . Bread, Cooked Food, and Milk of Gentiles . Wine of a Non-Jew . Certification of Kashrut Part IV. Forbidden Heathen Practices: Acknow- ST > ledging the Divine Order Tattooing and Making Oneself Bald for the Dead Shaving the Hair of the Temples and the Beard Prohibition of a Male Wearing a Woman’s Garment or a Woman Wearing the Gar- ment of a Male Separation of the Hallah Portion Fruit of the First Three Years (Orlah) Grafting of Trees Crossbreeding Diverse Kinds of Cattle ere ncn a tg Fs es a ee See a ee ee tll ee 259 8. Garments Made of Linen and Wool (Sha’tnez) 296 9. Prohibition of Cruelty to Animals and Castration of Humans and Animals 298 10. Protection of Human Life and Property 300 Sources and References 305 Codes and Responsa 333 Glossary 335 Index of Passages Cited 341 Topical List of Halachic Annotations 345 * * * DAILY PRAYER, SYNAGOGUE WORSHIP, AND TORAH STUDY 33 he should wipe his hands with some material, and con- clude the benediction with ‘‘the cleansing of the hands” (Hebrew words omitted in printing). Afterwards, when he obtains water, he should wash his hands without a bene- diction. 3. Washing of the hands is required on awakening from sleep,’ after defecating or urinating, after a bath,’ after cutting one’s nails or hair, after taking off one’s shoes, after attending a funeral, or upon leaving the house where a corpse lay, and after touching anything unclean or any private part of the body that is generally covered. 3. Dressing Before any | Hands Where possible one should endeavor to wash his hands upon arising in the morn- ing before putting on his clothing. However, where this is not practicable, one may dress himself before washing his hands. 4. song the Hands in the Bathroom A bathroom, with modern toilet facilities where the waste matter is flushed away and the room is used for other purposes as well, is nowadays considered to be like the anteroom of a bathhouse. One need not wash his hands upon leaving the bathroom unless he bathed or used the toilet facilities. While it is not permitted to say a blessing or to pray there, it is permitted if necessary to wash one’s hands for prayer and the meal. The blessing, however, should be said outside the bathroom. 260 3. RULES OF DRESS AND CONDUCT (Hebrew words omitted in printing) 1. One should endeavor to be modest in all his ways, as it is written, ‘‘And to walk humbly with thy God” (Micah 6:8). Modesty is a great virtue which one should seek to cultivate and observe even in complete privacy, because habit becomes second nature. 2. One must not wear immodest clothing,’ or clothes that 34 THE CONCISE CODE OF JEWISH LAW betoken pride and ostentation. Neither should they be torn or soiled, for though he may be inclined to disregard his own dignity, he must yet be respectful of others. 3. It is forbidden to follow heathen customs,’ or to imi- tate them in their dress, or in their way of cutting the hair or letting it grow. 1. Wearing Sensually Provocative Clothing Clothing de- signed to be sensually provocative should not be worn by men or women. Girls and women should not wear short dresses and mini-skirts which bare the thighs and thus tend to arouse sen- sual desire. Wearing such clothes, even when in compliance with the vagaries of prevailing fashion, is contrary to the Jew- ish tradition of modesty in dress, and transgresses the admoni- tion against following immoral alien customs and practices. 2. Taking an Oath With Head Uncovered. While a religious person will refrain from taking an oath in court, as it entails mention of God’s name, if it becomes necessary for him to do so he should keep his head covered while taking the oath. However, where this is not possible, he may take the oath with head uncovered, since this is the procedure that is normally followed. In these circumstances it is not subject to the pro- hibition against heathen customs. 261 4. Immediately upon rising a male should put on the tallit katan, for he must not go four cubits (approximately seven feet) without tzitzit. If his hands are washed he should say the benediction, (Hebrew words omitted in printing), ‘‘Blessed are thou, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who hath sanctified us with His commandments, and commanded us concerning the precept of tzitzit.” He should not go bareheaded’ or utter any holy words 3. Employment Where One Is Required to Go Bareheaded Wearing a head covering as a sign of humbleness and reverence before God is a revered tradition in Judaism and a token of Jewish identity. One is nevertheless permitted, especially where one’s livelihood is involved, to accept employment in a position where he will be required to go bareheaded, inasmuch as covering the head is prescribed by custom but is not de- manded by law. However, this applies only to the time and place of his employment, but not at other times. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0168%3A05. Public record. Not legal advice.